sf_object_reference

Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?

With no annotations, the description carries the full transparency burden. It discloses the data sources and what kind of information is returned (object details, field types, relationships), which is useful. However, it does not mention limitations (e.g., standard objects only), pagination, or output format, leaving some behavioral aspects undefined.

Agents need to know what a tool does to the world before calling it. Descriptions should go beyond structured annotations to explain consequences.

Is the description appropriately sized, front-loaded, and free of redundancy?

The description is a single, information-dense sentence with no filler. It front-loads the core action, then adds context about the sources and output, making it optimally concise.

Shorter descriptions cost fewer tokens and are easier for agents to parse. Every sentence should earn its place.

Given the tool's complexity, does the description cover enough for an agent to succeed on first attempt?

For a simple two-parameter lookup tool with no output schema, the description provides sufficient context: it names the sources, the type of data returned, and the scope (standard objects). It would be stronger with an explicit note about return structure, but the given info is largely adequate.

Complex tools with many parameters or behaviors need more documentation. Simple tools need less. This dimension scales expectations accordingly.

Does the description clarify parameter syntax, constraints, interactions, or defaults beyond what the schema provides?

Schema descriptions cover 100% of parameters, with clear explanations for 'object' and 'field'. The description adds no parameter-specific detail beyond schema, but the schema is sufficient, so a baseline score of 3 is appropriate.

Input schemas describe structure but not intent. Descriptions should explain non-obvious parameter relationships and valid value ranges.

Does the description clearly state what the tool does and how it differs from similar tools?

The description uses a specific verb ('Look up') and resource ('Salesforce standard object or field'), and further narrows scope by naming the exact references (Field Reference Guide, Object Reference). This clearly distinguishes it from sibling tools like sf_search or sf_graph_query, which serve different lookup/query purposes.

Agents choose between tools based on descriptions. A clear purpose with a specific verb and resource helps agents select the right tool.

Does the description explain when to use this tool, when not to, or what alternatives exist?

The description implies the tool is for retrieving object/field details from official Salesforce references, but it does not explicitly state when to choose this over alternatives like sf_search or sf_read_topic. No exclusions or comparisons are made, so usage guidance is only implicit.

Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.